CHESAMANGALAM FINANCING INSTITUTION Vs. NEELAKANDAN NAMBEESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitions are filed by the Cheramangalam Financing Institution, the plaintiff in two Small Cause suits disposed of by the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. The suits were filed for realisation of subscriptions in a kuri conducted by the petitioner. The defendants in both the cases admitted having bid the kuri, but disputed the correctness of the amounts due. They also claimed benefits under the Kerala Debt Relief Ordinance I of 1977 (for short, 'the Ordinance'). The Trial Court held that the amount claimed in the plaint was correct. As regards the claim under Ordinance 1 of 1977, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants adduced any evidence. The court held that since the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under S.9 of the Ordinance the defendants were entitled to have their liability declared as discharged The suits were accordingly dismissed without costs. The revision petitions are filed challenging the dismissal.

(2.) Pending revision, the Ordinance was repealed by Ordinance 9 of 1977 which in turn was replaced by Act 17 of 1977, (for Short 'the Act'). As a result of the saving provisions in the later Ordinance and the Act, anything done and any action taken under the Ordinance would be deemed to have been done or taken under the Act. S.9 of the two Ordinances and S.19 of the Act are couched in identical language. The question to be considered in the revision petitions is whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suits on the ground that the plaintiff did not adduce evidence and did not discharge the burden cast upon him under S.9 of Ordinance I of 1977. If the answer is in the negative, the dismissal of the suits has to be set aside and the suits may have to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions contained in Act 17 of 1977.

(3.) S.9 of the Ordinance and the corresponding provision in the Act read: